Interference 102,760
experimental work while the other makes suggestions from time
to time.” Monsanto Co. v. Kamp, 269 F. Supp. at 824, 154 USPQ
at 262.
The different views of the parties to this interference
proceeding on the issue whether Application 07/695,325
properly names Dement, Rosekind and Schwimmer as joint
inventors of the claimed subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 116
result from their failure to properly define the issue raised
by Rapoport’s motion. The question whether the subject matter
claimed in Application 07/695,325 is unpatentable under 35
U.S.C. § 102(f) is different in scope than the question
whether party Dement et al. should
be awarded priority of invention of the subject matter of the
interference count, the latter having been decided in favor of
Dement et al. (Decision mailed April 12, 1996 (Paper No. 112)
and Reconsideration mailed September 6, 1996 (Paper No. 122)).
For example, to be patentable to a patent applicant,
applicant’s specification must have enabled one skilled in the
art to make and use the full scope of the claimed invention in
the manner provided by 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, at
the time the application was filed. However, when determining
priority of the invention to which an interference count is
18
Page: Previous 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007